New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-08-26

,ro,n thu law reports among them the decision Of
The NewYork Court OF Appeals In tho Pcnta case az.
rase remarkng that the Recorder hold atthe evidence
gwen BIZ McQuade before tho Senate committee couid
nv St,orney aid not after this expression OF
opnion press the evidence. but wlthuteW IT, snu ~
Justice Potter comments upon the admission ny Jus
tce Barrett OF testimony showing that Inc prosecu"
was unable TO poduce Maoney, De Lacy and Inc oiher
booders upon the witness stand because they nau
1el 10 Canada ard decides that II was erroneous oo
cause there nothing shO wing that IL was the ouy OF
rho prosecon produce those persons as Witnesses
or n their absence TO account for their
lie continues .
Asamat;er of Ia there resting the
and not proper FOR II TO ne
ize IT. weakness IN any marner whstsver bat
,t, under sone circnmstances can be reasonably
hell that duty arises from The CIRCUMSTANCES IN t'
pIcty in the gull Of the defendant ana themselves m
likely to and testify TO II or testify S 10 ,ne
guilt OF s defendant thsv bad been STING ais s their
privilege and refused 70 testify unless perhsps or
upon the terms that the witness fuisi"H 'o'4'
against the defendant A., .o..,
Speaking of tho reliance 10 he placcd uPon 'He ''
mony Of accomplices, the Judge says ,..,.
eIS s IN 81 an acco
pce or OF a codendant 10 prove Us ca1 "a md tive
pier or eodetenaan shona he he trnth or 80 reabe
by erslandng WIN Ins mrbt DO tndacea 10
tell lie trut6 law wei as c3@IaSn ense re-
utop fh,s trit assumed ana uh1er SUN
81" v cence Illegal and dar gerous was anitte ana
a, tbe inry told by Court not 10 regard a.
ferps 10 prove guilt of the accused yet every eAper
suce ,ruina ludge and LAWYER knows from ms own Oh
the 40 not. mo-,
conI i-ter.ri q making their yertlct Bu te luty
coud ard n wehad assurance that tsy hsn
ne eviu IN making the verdict thcy Rendered IN lhs
tie ton upon Which s esas o secsye is
nocaons element in this case FOR " impi hs,
or might lead the jury TO an imphcatio' thae
strengthen Where it clear that the syowed
object vi Testimony craOls merely ITS ADMISSION
ro consierrd by the jury OF NOT or
calculated t. mieAd the jury as 10 lhe suehS Va
,roof sd TO make out It's case
nave what appears ia nv innh as very ease-
doubts whether there was not error IN recoNns ~
the r0se rutiun Alderman. and voted ~ AT
times BIosd~a railroad and WIS one OF the haIoa
lie not present AZ the early AugusV
ing did tho call for t. lie testheu tl nc
Ceyed Lacy in bills OF large denomination
in a after the Broadway resolution was pdsss
boardof Aldermen and that DE Lacy sad when no
ana that wit hIH aay or two anerwar ne
ths identical DE Lacy. and that there was no
agreement talk understanding with De Lacy az any
that tie given HIN on count o. ms
The witsess then In answer 10 lhs qaes
ton TELL what dill think at the time ne gave II 20
Won or 4" MAS allowed objection ana
lion supposei IL Broadway railroad The rl
Is that Of value OF property, OF olehV
skill from experts etc. the witness car ehy 70
facts his OPINION thoughts or suppos ~ 70
tbe proyinco Jury draw all proper ana legtm
conclusions inorsDcss II entirely proper III ne I'll
cYet Judge TO ask and ply al unwllng VIII
ness L. ding questions TO obtain competent
10 does make
thoughts competent evidence
He says in closing:
Entertaining views in regard to the portions OF the
reviewed duty is plain and ihpeia 70
the for stay OF the execution OF tAS
ri m de ~